9.  The applicant was born in 1974 and now resides in Australia. She is a Latvian national, who, in 2007, also acquired Australian nationality.
10.  After meeting T. and beginning a relationship with him at the beginning of 2004, she moved into his flat at the end of that year, although she was still married to another man, R.L., whom she divorced on 24 November 2005.
11.  On 9 February 2005 the applicant gave birth to a daughter, E. The child’s birth certificate does not give the father’s name, and no paternity test was carried out. The applicant, who was still living with T., subsequently received single-parent benefits. In spite of the deterioration in their relationship, the applicant continued to live with T. as a tenant.
12.  On 17 July 2008 the applicant left Australia for Latvia with her daughter, then aged three years and five months.
13.  On 19 August 2008 T. submitted an application to the Family Court in Australia to establish his parental rights in respect of the child. In support of his claim, he testified in a sworn affidavit that he had been in a relationship with the applicant since 2004 and the latter had always indicated that he was the father of the child, the rental agreement with the applicant for the flat was a sham and had been a mutual decision, and he had made false statements to the social security services in order to enable the applicant to receive single-parent benefit. T. asserted that the applicant had left Australia with the child without his consent, in violation of Article 3 of the Hague Convention, and had gone to an unknown place of residence in Latvia. In support of his claim, he submitted e-mail correspondence with members of his family.
14.  The applicant, although apparently invited by various means to attend the hearing or follow it by telephone, was not present.
15.  By a judgment of 6 November 2008, the Australian Family Court recognised T.’s paternity in respect of E. and held that the applicant and T. had had joint parental responsibility for their child since her birth. The judge added that examination of the case would be continued once the child had been returned to Australia, while stating as follows:
“... however, it is not of course for me to say whether the child’s presence in Latvia is the consequence of a wrongful removal or retention. With all due respect, it is for the Latvian judge to rule on that question.”
16.  The applicant did not appeal against that decision.
17.  On 22 September 2008 the Ministry of Children and Family Affairs, which was the Latvian Central Authority responsible for implementing the Hague Convention, received from their Australian counterpart a request from T. seeking the child’s return to Australia on the basis of that Convention. The return request was accompanied by a sworn affidavit setting out the applicable Australian law and certifying, without prejudice to the issue of paternity, that on the date on which the child had been removed from Australia T. had exercised joint parental authority over her within the meaning of Article 5 of the Hague Convention.
18.  On 19 November 2008 the Riga City Zemgale District Court (“the District Court”) examined the request in the presence of both T. and the applicant.
19.  At the hearing the applicant contested T.’s request. She explained that he had no grounds for being recognised as the father, since she had still been married to another man at the time of the child’s birth and T. had never expressed a wish to have his paternity recognised prior to her departure from Australia. She alleged that as T. had become hostile and sometimes aggressive towards her she had requested that persons who had visited her in Australia be called as witnesses. The applicant also submitted that T. had initiated the proceedings only in order to benefit from them in criminal proceedings that had allegedly been brought against him in Australia.
20.  The representative of the Bāriņtiesa, a guardianship and curatorship institution established by Riga City Council, called for T.’s request to be dismissed, arguing, on the one hand, that the applicant had been a single mother when the child was removed from Australia and, on the other, that the child had developed ties with Latvia.
21.  By a judgment of 19 November 2008, the District Court granted T.’s request and ordered that the child be returned to Australia immediately and, in any event, not later than six weeks after its decision. In its reasoning, noting that the Australian courts had established that the applicant and T. exercised joint parental responsibility, the court held, firstly, that the Latvian courts could neither reverse that decision, nor interpret and apply the Australian law. It further held that, in application of Articles 1 and 14 of the Hague Convention, the Latvian courts did not have jurisdiction to rule on T.’s parental responsibility for the child, but only on the child’s departure from Australia and her possible return. It considered that the child’s removal had been wrongful and had been carried out without T.’s consent. As to the application of Article 13 of the Hague Convention, it held, in the light of photographs and copies of e-mails between the applicant and T.’s relatives, that he had cared for the child prior to her departure for Latvia. While noting that witness statements referred to arguments between the parties and to the fact that T. had behaved irascibly towards the applicant and the child, it held that this did not enable it to conclude that T. had not taken care of the child. Lastly, the court dismissed as unfounded the allegation that the child’s return posed a risk of psychological harm.
22.  The applicant lodged an appeal, arguing that when they had left Australia she had been the child’s sole guardian in law and in practice and, further, that her daughter’s return to Australia would expose the child to psychological harm. In support of the latter point, she submitted a certificate prepared by a psychologist at her request after the first-instance court’s judgment. This certificate, based on an examination of E. on 16 December 2008, stated:
“Although it is clear from the examination that her development is adequate in terms of knowledge and language, the child is unable, on account of her age, to say which place of residence she prefers ... Bearing in mind the child’s age and her close emotional ties to her mother, which is normal for her age, her emotional well-being is primarily based on and closely linked to [the applicant’s] psychological balance ... The child needs the daily presence of her mother and to live with her permanently in the same place. Given her age – three years and ten months – an immediate separation from her mother is to be ruled out, otherwise the child is likely to suffer psychological trauma, in that her sense of security and self-confidence could be affected.”
23.  The applicant also maintained on appeal that Latvian was the child’s mother tongue, that she had attended pre-school activities in Latvia, that she had no ties in Australia and that she needed her mother’s presence. She alleged that T. had never helped them financially and had ill-treated them. In addition, she criticised the lower court for refusing to request information from the Australian authorities about T.’s criminal profile, previous convictions and the charges of corruption allegedly brought against him. She also contended that, were she to return to Australia, she would be unemployed and would have no income, and criticised the District Court for failing to provide for protection measures in the event of return.
24.  On 6 January 2009, on an application by the applicant, the District Court ordered a stay of execution of the decision of 19 November 2008 ordering the child’s return pending completion of the appeal proceedings. Relying on the Preamble to the Hague Convention, it held that the child’s best interests had to take priority over an immediate return, that the child was attached to her mother and that, according to the psychological report submitted by the applicant, a sudden interruption of contact with her mother would traumatise her.
25.  On 26 January 2009, after a hearing in the presence of both the applicant and T., the Riga Regional Court (Rīgas Apgabaltiesa) upheld the first-instance judgment. It held that T.’s request had complied with the Hague Convention, noting the short time-limits set out in it and observing that no formality or analysis was necessary in order to recognise the Australian court’s decision. In addition, it held that the lower court had correctly found, on the basis of all the relevant evidence, especially the letters and photographs that had been submitted, that T. had cared for the child. With regard to the argument by the applicant and the representative of the Bāriņtiesa concerning the alleged lack of information about the child’s situation in the event of her return to Australia, it considered that
“there are no grounds for doubting the quality of welfare and social protection provided to children in Australia, given that, according to the [sworn affidavit], Australian legislation provides, inter alia, for the security of children and [their] protection against ill-treatment within the family”.
26.  With regard to the applicant’s allegations, it held as follows:
“[The Court] dismisses ... the allegation that [T.] ill-treated [the applicant] and the child, as well as [the allegation] that he was liable to a prison sentence for [criminal charges brought against him] as no evidence has been submitted which could, even indirectly, support the allegations.
Neither can the conclusion of the [psychological assessment] of 16 December 2008 serve as evidence against returning the child to the requesting State. Although the conclusion stated that the child was in need of her mother and that immediate termination of contact between the mother and the child should be ruled out, the issue raised before this Court does not concern custody rights ... Pursuant to Article 19 of the Hague Convention, a decision under this Convention concerning the return of a child shall not be taken to be a determination on the merits of any custody issue.
[The Court] considers that ... [the child] ... has not reached an age or level of maturity which would allow her to formulate an opinion concerning a return to Australia.”
27.  On 5 February 2009 a bailiff instructed the applicant to comply with the decision ordering her to return the child by 19 February 2009 at the latest. The applicant refused to do so.
28.  On an unspecified date a bailiff lodged an application with the District Court for execution of the order to return the child. At the same time the District Court, having received a request from the applicant for a stay of execution of the return order for a period of six to twelve months, scheduled a hearing on 16 April 2009.
29.  On 6 March 2009, at T.’s request, the Latvian Central Authority asked the Bāriņtiesa to verify the child’s living conditions and to inform the applicant of T.’s request to see the child.
30.  On 14 March 2009 T. met the applicant and E. unexpectedly near a shopping centre. Taking advantage of this situation, he took E. and drove her to Tallinn (Estonia), then began the return journey to Australia. On 16 March 2009 the Latvian Central Authority, in response to a request from its Estonian counterpart and with a view to authorising T. to take a flight to Helsinki, supplied information concerning T.’s right to return to Australia with his daughter.
31.  A complaint subsequently filed by the applicant for abduction was dismissed, as was a disciplinary appeal against the Latvian Central Authority; the applicant’s request for a stay of execution of the return order became devoid of purpose.
32.  In September 2009 the Australian Family Court set aside all prior decisions relating to the parents’ rights and ruled that T. had sole parental responsibility for the child. While prohibiting the applicant from making any public statement about matters concerning the child or T., it authorised her to visit her daughter under the supervision of a social worker. The court also prohibited her from speaking to the child in Latvian and ruled that, until the child reached the age of eleven, the applicant was restrained from visiting or communicating by any means with any childcare facility, pre-school or school attended by her daughter, or with a parent of any other child attending the same institution.
33.  Before the Grand Chamber, the Government, referring to an article published in the Latvian press in October 2011 which contained, in particular, statements by the applicant’s sister, indicated that the applicant had returned to live in Australia, had found accommodation and was working in a State welfare institution. They also noted that she was in regular contact with her daughter, meeting her twice a week in a welfare centre, and that she had been able to see her without a social worker being present.